posted
I'm almost certain that the B-52 has always had jet engines. I don't think props would work very well for an aircraft of that size, range and payload.
posted
I know ST is supposed to be so egalitarian and all, but I suspect the justification is very similar to the shows' producers reason in reality; namely a largely economic one. Even with replicator-tech, these ships would be exorbitantly expensive to construct. (Labor and facilities intensive) I'm certain it would cost far more to lay a new keel and construct a brand new ship than it would to take an older one (and perhaps its crew) and upgrade. If you're looking for fleet support it wouldn't make sense to mothball a perfectly good starship simply because the new hotness can run circles around it. So maybe they have a bunch of perfectly good Mirandas and Excelsiors knocking around and maybe a Dr. Carol Marcus hell-bent on a new research mission convices them to restore an old hull which they weren't even using really to do her thing. So maybe some older ships come out with later registries than you'd expect. Not even Kirk could say no to Bibi.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The B-52 and the B-47 were both built as all-jet bombers from the very beginning. Their immediate predecessor, the gargantuanohumungous B-36, had some jets added when the six twin pusher props weren't considered enough, but she didn't go all-jet.
She was one of the aircraft considered for nuclear propulsion, though - a B-36 actually flew with an active fission reactor aboard, whereas the C-5 Galaxies merely had a space reserved for a reactor. Would have made things easier for the Osamas of this world - no need to target a nuclear plant with a big jet, when you have both in the same package.
The added impulse glow on the Mirandas and the Galaxies in DS9 is probably comparable to the auxiliary jets installed on the B-36, B-50, C-117 and whatnot - a minimal-cost performance-increasing measure to make ships better compatible with each other and with the latest threat speeds. The ships need not have been otherwise altered.
posted
I waited for untold aeons for the podded, supposedly exchangeable assembly to show some signs of actually being exchangeable for something else useful, and not just removable. I will NOT ALLOW YOU TO TAKE AWAY MY DREAM!
Dang. Mods no longer have the power to remove messages. So I'll go for the next best thing...
posted
Possibly for the same reasons that I do. They are almost certainly an SFX goof. And goofs != canon.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Umm... Why not? TOS still remains canon, AFAIK.
I hate to waste good opportunities just because somebody may not quite have "intended" something. If we see a starship hanging from a wire, then surely the ship has deployed a long-range wire antenna. If a phaser beam fires anywhere but the direction the actor is pointing the prop at, then this is clear evidence of an automated targeting system of some sort. And if an ages-old ship type suddenly sports extra engines...
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Umm... Why not? TOS still remains canon, AFAIK.
I didn't say TOS. I said effects goofs.
I mean, do you really think that the crew continuosly modified the design of the original Enterprise every single episode?
Kirk: I want vents on the nacelles.
*crew changed*
Kirk: No, wait, sperical projections!
*crew changed*
Kirk: No, wait, vents again!
Kor: I will kill you.
Kirk: Just a second Kor. I want to change the size of our navigational deflector first.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i also theorize the nacelles had some type of moving part apparatus depending on what kind of power situation they were in.. is as good an explanation as any, i guess
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
1.) The rollbar strikes me as a singularly bad place to put a big impulse engine.
2.) Rear torpedo coverage is a good thing, more good than whatever benefits I can imagine from swapping them out in favor of an engine. (And why not just upgrade the existing one?)
3.) The notion just doesn't sit well with my sense of aesthetics. It is unpretty.
And about the glow? Well, it wouldn't be the first torpedo launcher we've seen that glows during its pre-firing activities. Nor would it be the first time that a visual effects crew has lit a starship oddly.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
